Skip to main content

SC clarifies right of lessee under a valid lease

Secured creditor cannot take over possession of the secured asset with the lessee under a valid lease

 A large batch of appeals moved by tenants of properties mortgaged to banks was heard by the Supreme Court. In these 75 cases, led by Harshad Govardhan vs International Assets Reconstruction Ltd, the property owners who had taken loans did not repay the amounts leading to Sarfaesi proceedings.


The major issue in the present case was whether a mortgagee of a previously leased out property (unknown to the creditor) claim possession of the property upon the failure of the mortgagor in clearing his debts within the stipulated time. The bench comprising of Hon'ble Justice A. K. Patnaik and Hon'ble Justice Gopala Gowda,primarily ruled that without the determination of a valid lease, the possession of the lessee is lawful and such lawful possession of a lessee was to be protected by all courts and tribunals. Discussing the primary need of determining the lease, the Court required that a lessee could either surrender or resist the possession of the property by the secured creditor. In the former case, the lease would stand determined even if the property be in the legal possession of the lessee but in the latter case, the authorized officer shall refer the dispute to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who shall then, in accordance to the principles of natural justice, validate the lease and accordingly award possession of the property to the lessee or the secured creditor. Further, the Court set aside a Judgment of the Bombay High Court and the views taken in the case of M/s Trade Well v. Indian Bank [2007 CRI. L.J. 2544], observing that the appellants, however, had no remedy under the SARFAESI (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest) Act for moving the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Concluding, the Court set aside the previous orders passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate asking of him to pass fresh orders in accordance with the Court's judgment and any other law that may be relevant, after hearing the appellants and the secured creditors.

Interestingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has added a new twist in the CMM/DM application issue. The order went on to say "................We have already held that Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act does not provide that the lease in respect of a secured asset will get determined when the secured creditor decides to take the measures in the said section. Hence, possession of the secured asset from a lessee in lawful possession under a valid lease is not required to be taken under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate, therefore, does not have any power under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act to take possession of the secured asset from such a lessee and hand over the same to the secured creditor. When, therefore, a secured creditor moves the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate for assistance to take possession of the secured asset, he must state in the affidavit accompanying the application that the secured asset is not in possession of a lessee under the valid lease made prior to creation of the mortgage by the borrower or made in accordance with Section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act prior to receipt of a notice under sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the SARFAESI Act by the borrower.

So from now on, the application to the Chief Metropolitan or District Magistrate will now have to carry the above statement apart from those specified by the Section 14 of the ACT.

 [Harshad Govardhan Sondagar v. International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 736 of 2014, decided on April 3, 2014]

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more